No 35, April 2008
DIALOGUES
A changing landscape for civil society in Russia? CSW readers respond
In the previous issue of CSW Monthly Bulletin, we interviewed Maria Kanevskaya from the Lawyers for Civil Society in Russia. Maria warned about the threats posed to Russian civil society by amendments to the NGO law. In response to Maria’s interview, we received two letters.
In the first letter, the Chair of the Board of Lawyers for Civil Society, Andrey Nenashev discusses the problems caused by the new amendments, but encourages constructive dialogue with the authorities.
In the second letter, two prominent Siberian civil society representatives and founders of Siberian Civic Initiatives Support Center, Sarah Lindemann-Komarova and Elena Malitskaya, argue that the current public relations campaign against the new NGO law led by international and human rights organisations does not reflect the real state of civil society in Russia, and instead actually damages the Russian third sector.
Read Sarah and Elena's response
Other resources:
Human Rights Watch
“Choking on Bureaucracy: State Curbs on Independent Civil Society Activism”
http://hrw.org/reports/2008/russia0208/
The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law
“Analysis of the Impact of Recent Regulatory Reforms on Non-commercial Organizations and Public Associations in Russia”
http://www.civicus.org/csw/ICNL_Monitoring_Report_Russia_EN.pdf
Amnesty International
“Freedom Limited: The Right of Freedom of Expression in the Russian Federation”
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR46/008/2008/en
A letter from Andrey Nenashev, Board Chair, Non-profit partnership Lawyers for Civil Society
Nonprofit partnership "Lawyers for Civil Society" unites highly professional lawyers who work in the sphere of the legislation that regulates activities of civil society organisations (including human rights and charity organisations).
The main purpose of the creation of our professional community is to unite our efforts for legal protection and interest representation of citizens and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
Since 2006, several amendments were introduced into the Russian legislation on NGOs, which concern the organisation about the control over activities of NGOs, public and religious associations, both domestic and foreign. A list of amendments, introduced into the legislation on NGOs, in the opinion of the state, was caused by the need for control of the inflow and the use of financial funds in NGOs. Special attention during the amendment process was given to the monitoring of financial resources from foreign sources.
What has the implementation of the amended legislation on NGOs shown during the last two years?
Evidently, the state, through the Federal Registration Service (FRS), has to a certain degree attained the objectives set by the amended legislation.
The majority of NGOs that have been excluded from the Unified State Registry of Legal Entities or liquidated in the past two years were the so-called "dead souls" of civil society, i.e. they did not conduct any activity, did not submit any reports, and their official addresses at which they were registered did not correspond to their factual location.
Thus, the new legislation on NGOs, to a large degree, gave the lawful basis for “cleansing” the civil society of Russia from "dead" NGOs.
On the grounds of the results of the activities of lawyers of the Non-Profit Partnership Lawyers for Civil Society in 30 regions of Russia in the past two years, unfortunately, it is necessary to state that FRS and other state controlling bodies have used the new legislation on NGOs to prosecute and liquidate a range of NGOs, who for one or another are in confrontation with the official position of the state bodies on a number of issues. Actually, FRS uses the "levers" of the new amendments, introduced into the legislation on NGOs in 2006, for "suppression" and "subjugation" of the dissatisfied representatives of the civil society of Russia.
I can partially agree with the position of a number of the leaders of NGOs, the representatives of the Public Chamber of Russian Federation, on the fact that the new law has many holes that can be used to shut down almost any NGO. Most frequently they attempt to liquidate NGOs because of their educational activities, which according to FRS, include any single seminar and even whole programmes. The most illustrative example is that of the pressure on the British Council.
To my opinion, the stumbling block between the state (the Russian FRS) and NGOs is the absence of any dialogue between the registering and controlling bodies for NGOs (that is the FRS) and the noncommercial sector (officially registered NGOs). The dialogue, in the first place, is hindered by the bureaucratic and formal approach of the FRS of Russia to the control of NGO activities, especially by the FRS Departments in the regions. At least the formally open approach to the interactions between NGOs exists only in several regional FRS departments, for example in Penza Province, where a public council on NGO issues was created at the local Penza Provincial FRS. Although it is necessary to state that these achievements in creating dialogue between the officials and NGOs happened because of the work of active leaders and representatives of the NGO sector. For example, to continue on Penza Province, I think the public council on NGOs was created there because of the active work of the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Lawyers for Civil Society Alexey Bogoroditskiy. There are many other active professional lawyers in Russian provinces who render qualified legal aid to NGOs. For example, Nadejda Sizyh from Irkutsk province, Igor Mikhaylov in Chuvashia, Elena Makey in Ekaterinburg and many other lawyers in the regions, members of Lawyers for Civil Society.
Thus, my opinion on the existing situation with the implementation of the new NGO legislation is that dialogue between the state and NGOs is possible, and indeed necessary!
This is confirmed by the extensive work done by Lawyers for Civil Society, and also by our partners in the Legal Consortium: International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), Democracy Development and Human Rights Center and Agency of Social Information. Daria Miloslavskaya, director of the Russian ICNL Alliance, does significant work on the development of dialogue with the FRS on the simplification of the NGO reporting forms and other joint activities.
Since 1 November 2006, our consortium has been implementing a civil society legal assistance project "NGO legislation: legal assistance, monitoring and public actions", the purpose of which is to improve the sphere of the legal regulation of the activity of civil society organisations in Russia.
I argue that it should not be categorically declared, as some representatives of Russian human rights NGOs do, that the state has set a goal for itself to eliminate all or almost all NGOs. This is an incorrect approach!
All changes that are happening in the NGO sector in Russia must be objectively evaluated, considering also the prospects of civil society development.
At this stage of civil society development in Russia, what do NGO and their leaders lack? As the work experience of our Partnership and Legal Consortium tells us, the legal knowledge of NGOs at their creating and activities is not sufficient.
To fill this gap Lawyers for Civil Society, in the last two years, has provided free legal advice to all types of NGOs in 30 territories of Russian Federation. The purpose of our work is to improve the sphere of the legal regulation of the activities of civil society organisations in Russia. Ideally, our work should lead to the situation where Russian NGOs, even without having a staff lawyer, can work peacefully, without fearing their liquidation on formal grounds, knowing that the legal aspect of their activities completely complies with the NGO legislation.
Evaluating the preliminary results of our work, we have to state that a large number of NGOs are being liquidated by the FRS through the court on the formal grounds, i.e., often because of elementary ignorance or non-observance of the requirements of the NGO legislation.
It depresses me to know that many NGOs do not independently
submit complaints for the obviously illegal actions of the
FRS officials
in the regions. The statistics confirms this. The FRS received only 100
official complaints in 2007.
Compare this with the fact that, according to the last report of the FRS, in
2007 eleven thousand NGOs were refused registration, and the courts received
8,300 claims to liquidate NGOs (http://gzt.ru/society/2008/04/10/063010.html).
In my opinion, over the next two years the bulk of the existing NGOs, independently or with the support of such organisations as our partnership and our partners in the Legal Consortium, will be able to adapt to the changed conditions. Lawyers for Civil Society and the Legal Consortium will in every way possible contribute to and help the formation and development of the NGO sector in Russia as an integral part of civil society, including through dialogue with the FRS and other state bodies.
Sarah Lindemann-Komarova
echosiberia (at) gmail (dot) com
Malitskaya Elena Lena (at) cip (dot) nsk
(dot) su
The overwhelmingly negative Western coverage about civil society in Russia today is a surprise and disappointment to many who have dedicated their lives to building civil society here since the mid 90’s. As founders of the Siberian Civic Initiatives Support Center, the first NGO resource centre network in the former Soviet Union, we are among the confused. We understand that many of the assumptions being echoed in the Western press come from a group of our NGO colleagues who have backgrounds, for the most part, in human rights and not NGO or civil society development. We respect their right to promote their opinion, however, this latest public relations push demands a response because it is promoting something that can be truly damaging to the third sector (the collective name for NGOs in Russia). This involves the amendments to the NGO Law and calls from this small segment of organisations to abolish the law.
One representative of this coalition, said that “Civil society responded to the new law with a uniform and clear “no”. Another anti-law activist from the Moscow Helsinki Group, Lyudmilla Alexeyeva, has said “…. many NGOs now have to do paper work and prepare reports. For NGOs with small personnel this spells death. They can't cope and have to close down,". We have seen no evidence that would support either of these statements. With regard to the threat to small NGOs, Maria Obrasova, the head of a tiny NGO in a village in the Republic of Altai, does not share this fear. When asked about the reporting process she said the paperwork took about two days and the whole process a month. She did not feel it was particularly burdensome. “I want my organisation to grow, I want it to be professional and for people to respect and trust us so we can attract increased support for our work, and I consider this part of that process.”
The attitude expressed by the village NGO above was shared by representatives of civil society/NGO resource centres from fourteen Russian regions recently. We asked them how the NGO law amendment implementation was going in their regions. No one reported any noteworthy problems. Based on their experiences, the Federal Registration Service was doing everything possible in these regions to locate organisations and notify them of the requirements. As an example, in the Kemerovo Region, officials e-mailed and snail mailed announcements twice to all registered NGOs , conducted a briefing for the local press and consultations for organisations and announced a competition for the “Best Report”. This last idea replicates a tactic introduced in Russia by the Donors Forum in Moscow for foundations. The NGO resource centre conducted consultations, and published information in their “NGOs in the Kyzbass” bulletin. This campaign was designed because last year only 62% reported and there were no sanctions for not reporting.
A need for improvement in procedures on the NGO, as well as the government side, was documented in the 2007 ICNL survey on the implementation of the amendments. Here it was reported that “NGOs were unable to track and measure overhead charges and other indirect costs, which indicate a much deeper challenge relating to internal recordkeeping, accounting, and management practices. All are still a challenge for many NGOS; which ultimately weakens their sustainability, as they are vulnerable to government audits.” The survey also indicated that there is no evidence the amendments represent a big threat to the third sector as a whole or any segment within the sector. Respondents “did not identify a change in the number of audits, presence of uninvited state representatives, or requests for information, since the law went into effect. It appears that the number of audits has always been very high, and that certain regions have always had a higher degree of government intervention.” It also reported that, “Neither survey respondents nor focus group participants state that Law #18-FZ has been disproportionately applied against human rights or advocacy groups; rather, the law is causing the same kinds of problems across the board due to over all ambiguity and lack of clarity of certain provisions.”
The NGO experts we spoke to offered similar observations and, based on this, believe that the new registration and reporting process is both a positive and necessary step towards achieving the goal of a powerful third sector. They do not think the process is perfect but there has been an open and ongoing dialogue between them and the local Federal Registration Service representatives to assess how it can be improved so it meets the needs and interests of both sides.
These resource centre representatives agree with the anti-law activists that the amendments will result in a fewer number of registered NGOs. However, the reasons and impact differ from what is being reported. There were two primary reasons. The first is that a large number of “dead” organisations will now officially disappear. The second reason is the reporting process brought to light numerous organisations that were using their NGO status as a cover for commercial activity or other financial machinations. Everyone felt that the liquidation of these “NGOs” was essential if the sector was going to gain the respect and trust required to generate the financial support necessary for individual NGOs to become sustainable and for the sector as a whole to be a stable and strong force in society. Thus, they saw the amendments as a net positive.
This “image problem” has hounded NGOs since the third sector movement began in the mid-90’s. Today, the depth of that problem in Russia has been codified by a wide range of sources. These include the 2007 Edelman Business Trust Barometer where Russia was one of only two (out of 18 countries) where NGOs were rated as the least trusted institutions in the country. Most other countries rated NGOs as among the most trusted. In the 2007 Public Chamber “Status of Civil Society Annual Report” survey data was presented indicating that 55% of respondents knew nothing about NGOs. It is impossible to imagine a strategy for increasing trust without increased transparency and accountability. Likewise, it is impossible to dramatically increase public awareness and appreciation for the work of NGOs without increased professionalism and funding.
These are the issues that we, along with most of the resource centre representatives we spoke to, have been addressing since 1995. At that time there wasn’t a single ruble available to NGOs in competition. The only support going to organisations was done behind closed doors and only to groups with close ties to the local administration. The strategy chosen to open up the process was to promote NGOs as effective mechanisms for addressing the issues that people in Russia care about and as equal partners to local government in improving quality of life in communities. As a result of these efforts, Siberia was the first region in Russia to conduct an open government competition to support NGOs and other citizen initiatives. Today, competitions in just two regions of our network will each distribute almost $1,000,000 and NGO representatives are included on the judging committees. Another recent improvement in the environment for NGOs is the Federal Law on Endowments. The list of foci for foundations to be eligible is not as broad as we would have liked, the Siberian Center activities are not eligible, but it was a collaborative process and the outcome a huge step forward. That is what we believe civil society development is all about - picking your battles, making compromises, thanking the other side for doing the same and as long as it is always two steps forward, one step back, you are ahead and your strategy is working.
If we looked at the broader context of civil society, in addition to the funding now available, there are many new opportunities for citizens to become active and take responsibility for the quality of life in their communities and the country. Law #131 on “Local Self-Governance” and other codes such as those on water, forest and building mandate citizen participation in the decision making process on “issues of local significance”. The Siberian Center was asked to facilitate an open process to develop the concept for modernization of education in our region. This was the first time representatives from stakeholder groups outside of the traditional education sphere were asked to provide input. More recently the administration awarded the Siberian Center a tender to monitor the 34 regional department Internet sites and assess them in terms of their content and currency of updates. In fact, citizen committees, councils, hearings and volunteer actions have become so prevalent that our concern has shifted from creating mechanisms to making sure they are maximising their effectiveness by adhering to democratic principles. The impression that organisations receiving support from foreign donors are not trusted by Russian government is contradicted by Siberian Centers’ work with numerous regional administrations. The criterion is expertise that has demonstrated results, then local government is interested.
Obviously, there is still a long, long road ahead to achieve a well-known, respected and stable third sector and a vibrant civil society in Russia. Should the need arise, we, along with other civil society/NGO resource centres, will adapt our response and come to the defense of law-abiding NGOs closed unjustly. For now, the priority is participating in a dialogue with government on how best to strengthen civil society. This includes an April Russian Federation Council parliamentary hearing on “legislative problems supporting the development of civil society” and the Public Chambers Charitable Commission public hearing on “improving the conditions for NGO reporting to government and the general public”.
Another priority is promoting a more transparent and effective process for the distribution of over $63,000,000 to NGOs in the 2008 Federal Competition that was just announced. This would be hard to do if we were promoting less transparency and accountability for NGOs. We are also ready to join our colleagues in the third sector when they are ready to promote standards and practices that will make NGOs better known and respected by the Russian public and noted in the Western media for excellence and effectiveness rather than for complaining about having to do paperwork.